Can We Truly Grasp the Unfathomable Love of Christ?

[Saint]

I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge--that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God. (Ephesians 3:16-19 NIV)

The bible verses above ask us To Know something Beyond Knowledge.
My question is, if it is really beyond knowledge, how can i know it?

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Hi Saint,

it seems you finally found something the Bible fans can't answer

 

[one_raven]

Originally posted by Saint
The bible verses above ask us To Know something Beyond Knowledge.
My question is, if it is really beyond knowledge, how can i know it?

I am not coming from a Christian perspective.
I am no Bible thumper.
In fact, I am about as far from a Christian as you can be.

But these verses do not refer to knowing something beyond knowledge.
It is saying that Christ's love surpasses knowledge.

3:19 - and to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.

3:20 - Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us,

3:21 - unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.

KJV

It is a prayer for you to understand in your heart and soul that the love that Jesus offers you is so much more important than any mental knowledge that you can gain through learning and reason.
It is offering a wish that your mind will allow your heart to accept the love of Jesus even though your mind may not understand how or why the compassion and pure love he embodies is possible because he works within your soul, which is more important and potent than your mind could ever be capable of.

Disgusting! *shivers*
I sound like a preacher!
I need to go take a shower now.

I am not saying I agree with the passage, but I think you misinterpreted what was being said.

 

[Saint]

It is a prayer for you to understand in your heart and soul that the love that Jesus offers you is so much more important than any mental knowledge that you can gain through learning and reason.
It is offering a wish that your mind will allow your heart to accept the love of Jesus even though your mind may not understand how or why the compassion and pure love he embodies is possible because he works within your soul, which is more important and potent than your mind could ever be capable of.

Pretty good interpretation.
I assume what the bible says is, the Love of Christ is Unbelieveable.

 

[Saint]

Back to the philosophical question, how can we say something is beyond knowledge ?

 

[one_raven]

Originally posted by Saint
I assume what the bible says is, the Love of Christ is Unbelieveable.

Great summation!

Originally posted by Saint
Back to the philosophical question, how can we say something is beyond knowledge ?

I guess that would depend on how you define "beyond knowledge".
Do you mean more important than knowledge?
More reliable?
Of greater intrinsic value?
something else?

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by one_raven
I guess that would depend on how you define "beyond knowledge".
Do you mean more important than knowledge?
More reliable?
Of greater intrinsic value?
something else?

well, when you say beyond physics what do you mean is something that can't be described by physics. So I suppose beyond knowledge simply means something that can't be known.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Saint
Back to the philosophical question, how can we say something is beyond knowledge ?

We can say it the same way we say anything else, but it lacks meaning (as you've probably surmised by now). It doesn't make sense to say that something is beyond knowledge, though it may be beyond knowing.

The difference is that "knowing" can refer to full comprehension of a topic, while "knowledge" of something can refer to knowing that this "thing" even exists ITFP.

 

[confutatis]

Originally posted by Saint
Back to the philosophical question, how can we say something is beyond knowledge?

My ability to stand on two legs is beyond knowledge. I don't know how to do it, and I can't teach others how to do it. If I suddenly lose it, I don't know how to regain it. Yet if I say I don't know how to walk, people will find it strange.

There clearly is something beyond knowledge; it may be called doing, or experiencing.

 

[HeavensWarFire]

Maybe its an issue of perspective?

La la la la la la la, oh my what a wonderful world this is.

and to know this love that surpasses knowledge--that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God. (Ephesians 3:16-19 NIV)

This is just an opinion, but could it be the case, that the term "knoweledge" generally means an actual understanding of something? Hence, when it says "surpasses knowledge," all that it is saying is that your mind couldn't possibly even begin to to truly understand that which is of a Divine nature. Hence, it is beyond your range of knowledge, for it is of a realm that you are ill-equipted for. Think about it logically: You can't comprehend the fact that you exist, but yet, you have existence. You don't understand the very idea of gravity, or the overall systme of the Universe, but its there, even thought it is beyond your little minds.

 

[HeavensWarFire]

Oh the love of English.

So, anyone here into like English one o one?

We can say it the same way we say anything else, but it lacks meaning (as you've probably surmised by now). It doesn't make sense to say that something is beyond knowledge, though it may be beyond knowing.

The difference is that "knowing" can refer to full comprehension of a topic, while "knowledge" of something can refer to knowing that this "thing" even exists ITFP.

Knowledge refers to the contents of ones knowing. Knowing refer to the state of cognition. He knows, or he will know, are all different states of intellectual developement. when one knows, one has knowledge. when they don't know, they are ignorant. Hence, for something to be beyond knowledge means that as it stands, there is something that could be known, but isn't known as of yet. Hence, over, and beyond, your actual level/range of knowing, there is the pieces of knowledge that you could know, but you don't know.

Knowledge, also implies the state of actual recognition, or understanding. And since you can compete with GOD, it is absurd to think that there will not always be things beyond you, beyond your atomic measures of knowledge.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by HeavensWarFire
Knowledge refers to the contents of ones knowing.

Not always. "Knowledge" can be used to refer to comprehension as well. In fact, it is rather common to hear someone to be speaking of something that he knows someone else has great comprehension of and say "you know it, don't you?".

Knowing refer to the state of cognition.

No it doesn't. "Knowing" refers to a filing away of information gathered from cognition. The state of cognition is called consciousness.

 

[HeavensWarFire]

gggggggggrrrrrrrrr



You can't possibly be serious?

Not always. "Knowledge" can be used to refer to comprehension as well. In fact, it is rather common to hear someone to be speaking of something that he knows someone else has great comprehension of and say "you know it, don't you?".

Clearly, you failed to understand what i wrote. If someone "comprehense," doesn't it follow that there is something to have comprehension of? Well, if so, then what could one possibly have "comprehension" of-----if not of something that they must already have some cognition of? Well if so, then how do you term the relationship between a person who has no comprehension of something, and someone who does? What, that one of the 2 people knows something that the other does not? Ok, so what is knowing?

My primary claim still remains unshakened: Knowledge is the contents of ones knowing. Period.

Lets take a few analogies:

You are a teacher of a Kindergarden class. You teach simple things like the alphabet. From your teaching experiences, you know that some of your studants can actually recite their alphabet from A to Z. And you also know that some studants, can recite some of the alphabet, but not all the way to Z. Some child might actually in fact, be able to go as far as only the letter M.

Now, can we say that the child who can only go as far as M, is the same as the child who can go from A to Z without a problem?

From this perspective then, we can infer that there is a difference in having an idea of something, and being able to actually know something.

For the child that can demonstrate to the instructor their knowledge of the alphabet can clearly be justified in the receiving the charge, that "He knows his alphabet." But can we say the same thing to the child who can not go past the letter M, that "she knows the alphabet"?

Clearly, from this very simply analogy we can see that there's a difference between having the gist of something, and knowing something.

To have knowledge then, means to know what you could know. But what is the opposite of not having knowledge? Could be ignorance?

No it doesn't. "Knowing" refers to a filing away of information gathered from cognition. The state of cognition is called consciousness.

Now, you are just being silly.

If you are not cognising, does it mean that you have knowledge about something that you can't possibly have cognition of?

To cognise means to be aware of something. One could say that to be aware of something relates very closely to having knowledge of something, since you are having some kind of awareness about something.

Here, you might find this site a bit useful:

www.dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cognition

Or,

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cognition

 

[young e.]

A big YES! that is the concept of immortality. The LOve that surpasses knowledge that was being mention there is the immortal love
or unconditional love or the AGAPE.

The concept of Immortality is very hard to attain, you can know it by looking things around you and even you. Even you believe in the theory of evolution there still raise a question---who creates evolution? The very answer to this question is that there is a creator who owns the knowledge that never known to any genious under the sun.He is the immortal one!

 

[olde drunk]

to me, to go beyond knowledge was to 'have faith'.

you can not know or prove a greater reality, but we know (have faith) that we exist simultaneously in many dementions. we romanticize (and institutionalize) christ's words and lessons. let's just accept their very basic simple meaning. afterall, the acutal words may have even been embellished when being transcribed.

dassit!

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Saint
The bible verses above ask us To Know something Beyond Knowledge.
My question is, if it is really beyond knowledge, how can i know it?

The essence of God is Love, of which knowledge can only infer.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
The essence of God is Love, of which knowledge can only infer.

How do you know that?

 

[SmarterThanGod]

Originally posted by Saint
The bible verses above ask us To Know something Beyond Knowledge.
My question is, if it is really beyond knowledge, how can i know it?

You cant. The bible is a comic book w/o pictures. How can superman fly? In reality, he cant. Its just a story

 

[Zantra]

Beyond knowledge to me(and if this has already been stated, apologies) neans beyond man's ability to comprehend. It doesn't necessarily mean beyond any possibility of knowing, just not at our level. So at some higher level of existence, it may be possible to comprehend, but not on our level of awareness.

Of course this is all coming from an agnostic, so the very question itsself is flaw IMHO.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Zantra
Of course this is all coming from an agnostic, so the very question itsself is flaw IMHO.

An agnostic can form opinions?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Mentat
How do you know that?

To have knowledge of God is not the same thing as the experience of God. In which case the experience gets at the essence or core of what God truly is, Love.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
To have knowledge of God is not the same thing as the experience of God. In which case the experience gets at the essence or core of what God truly is, Love.

Good point. It is claimed by most introspective philosophers, mystics etc. that the ultimate is beyond knowing because, as Iacchus32 says, knowing is not the same as being. Even Popper argued that ultimately knowledge, to be certain, must be the joining of the knower and the known. This is the final synthesis of the experience with the experiencer, the loss of self. All non-dual philosophies claim the same about the limits of knowledge, as did Plato, Spinoza and hundreds of others.

However they do not all say that this is God. Perhaps surprisingly most of them assert that it isn't. I don't think it is either.

Still, imo whoever wrote the Bible extract that started this thread understood something fundamental about epistemology and reality.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by Canute
Still, imo whoever wrote the Bible extract that started this thread understood something fundamental about epistemology and reality.

you mean she could be a saint?

 

[Canute]

I've no idea how one qualifies to be a Christian saint. I just meant that the extract makes some sense even if one isn't a Christian.

Edit: Doh. Sorry, I just got what you meant. I forgot 'Saint'. No I didn't mean the her. I meant whoever wrote it.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
To have knowledge of God is not the same thing as the experience of God. In which case the experience gets at the essence or core of what God truly is, Love.

And how do you know that? You obviously believe you have some knowledge of God, otherwise you wouldn't know how to "experience" Him.

 

[Canute]

“Actual knowledge is identical with its object”

Aristotle (via Popper 'The Problem of Induction' 1953)

In the end it's a logically unavoidable conclusion. Even some physicists agree...

“When we encounter the Void, we feel that it is primordial emptiness of cosmic proportions and relevance. We become pure consciousness aware of this absolute nothingness; however, at the same time, we have a strange paradoxical sense of its essential fullness. This cosmic vacuum is also a plenum, since nothing seems to be missing in it. While it does not contain in a concrete manifest form, it seems to comprise all of existence in a potential form. In this paradoxical way , we can transcend the usual dichotomy between emptiness and form, or existence and non-existence. However, the possibility of such a resolution cannot be adequately conveyed in words; it has to be experienced to be understood.” (my italics)

Staislav Grof – The Cosmic Game – 1998 State University of New York

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Mentat
And how do you know that? You obviously believe you have some knowledge of God, otherwise you wouldn't know how to "experience" Him.

First of all knowledge is derived from the past (retrospect) as well as the future (speculative), whereas the experience entails the "here and now." Indeed, there's a difference between reading about something in a book, what we would call a vicarious experience, and taking "the journey" ourselves.

In answer to your question more directly ... Experience is the actual or "living knowledge" which is acquired through intimacy or familiarity with a subject and thus developing a first hand account. So, although knowledge will lead us to the experience, the experience must ultimately override the knowledge. Why? Because knowledge is none other than a second hand account of the first hand account which -- and get this -- involves taking someone else's word for it!

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
First of all knowledge is derived from the past (retrospect) as well as the future (speculative), whereas the experience entails the "here and now." Indeed, there's a difference between reading about something in a book, what we would call a vicarious experience, and taking "the journey" ourselves.

In answer to your question more directly ... Experience is the actual or "living knowledge" which is acquired through intimacy or familiarity with a subject and thus developing a first hand account. So, although knowledge will lead us to the experience, the experience must ultimately override the knowledge. Why? Because knowledge is none other than a second hand account of the first hand account which -- and get this -- involves taking someone else's word for it!

But, of course you already know I'm going to ask you, "How do you know that?". It will go on and on like this, because you, like the ancient philosophers have deemed knowledge completely uncertain (even if you replace it with certain experience), and thus should be questioning your own questioning...it is paradoxical, but I didn't make it that way, you did .

 

[Iacchus32]

How do you know what a scrambled egg omelette tastes like? I'm sure I could go into full detail in describing its taste, and even suggest a thousand ways in which to prepare it, but I can assure you, nothing beats tasting it for yourself!